From the viewpoint of a tabloid, it's cheap to make (the users do the work for you) and gets clicks.

>>442402

Also, it makes great DM rage bait.

Gone are the days when tabloids made their money with Huffpost-style clickbait along the lines of, "You won't believe what this Essex mum found in her wheelie bin". Now, you put up an article about somebody calling Alan Carr a common poof, and it's absolute gold.

>>442402

That, basically. The collapse in circulation and advertising revenues means that most newspapers are operating on a skeleton staff. The Daily Mail is comfortably profitable, but pretty much every other paper is running at a loss even after multiple rounds of redundancies. It's not uncommon for interns to outnumber paid reporters.

Real journalism is expensive, time-consuming and rarely sells papers or drives clicks; bullshit off the internet is cheap, fast and irresistibly clickbaity.

>>442401
I reckon the people who post offensive things for attention probably aren't angling to have their actions reported in the national press. For most of them that's when things become too real; insincere apologies get made after jobs are lost. They feel empowered to dump bile into the Twitter void precisely because the reaction doesn't typically threaten them.

>As far as I can tell, the message is be an obnoxious twat and you'll get the attention you sorely crave. It doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.

The press have a bag of spuds with the internet and employed similar sensationalist antics against radio. I'm specifically thinking of the War of the Worlds broadcast being blown out of all proportion to attack the new medium.

That and its easy like the other lad said. Maybe you could add that the public are thinned skinned but it's more likely they just want to punish a taboo breaker while doing absolutely nothing of underlying consequence besides destroying a teenagers life in mob fashion. Warwick Davis was an unusual one though because it mostly came from him acting like a complete fanny and getting mocked for it, there was never a threat to his life - nobody could stoop so low.

>>442413
Did anything actually come of him threatening legal action against 4chan?

>>442412
>They feel empowered to dump bile into the Twitter void precisely because the reaction doesn't typically threaten them.
This is exactly it. They do it because it's basically a free action. There have been hitherto no consequences for them. There is an argument to be had over whether losing one's job is an appropriate consequence for shitposting on social media, but that's for another time.

>>442415

Anybody who resonably considers themselves left wing should be dead against the precedent of an employer to sacking you for anything you say or do as an individual outside the boundaries of the workplace. That shouldn't even be an argument.

If you're posting KKK propaganda from a "professional" Twitter bio that proudly displays you're the head of media relations for GreedCorp Inc fair enough. But for the average drone, things had already gone much too far when bosses started sniffing around their employee's facebook pages. It's a shite state of affairs and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking bellend. That's all there is to it.

>>442436
Is this a no true Scotsman thing? You can't be truly left-wing unless you unequivocally believe that an employer can't sack an individual for what they post online.

>>442437
He said "should", not "is truly".

I'm not sure I agree, being against it should really be something for anyone who isn't an authoritarian, that's not the same axes as left/right.

The problem is we let companies establish that peoples online personas were directly linked to their personal life, because they wanted to farm them for data on what type of shoes to sell them.

A human being is not the same person at all times and never was, and you can't expect them to stand up to judgement by all people from all angles, online communication has gone from anonymous to a panotagon.

Social media died for me the day I mentioned something about my mental health on Facebook and it spread round the office. Never again. Twitter needs to be turned into a full otherplace grade shitshow to free people from themselves. If someone doesn't spam the word faggot repeatedly from multiple ips to ever corporate twitter non-stop otherwise people will be under the delusion they have the ability to control how everyone else talks. Fuck those cunts who want to make criticising Major Tom criminal this game in conformity and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' has gone long enough.

>>442441

*panopticon

>>442441
>Social media died for me the day I mentioned something about my mental health on Facebook and it spread round the office.

What exactly did you think was going to happen? If you put something in the public domain then you shouldn't be surprised that people use it.

>>442443

Not that lad, but when I was a grad student I would post music I made on soundcloud and my supervisors saw any student doing anything that wasn't their thesis during any waking hour as a fundamental affront to the academic endeavour.

Snarky bitches will cyberstalk colleagues and weaponize even the most mundane info for office gossip. And you can bet if you didn't have a facebook, or if you didn't add workmates, that'd be objectionable also: "He hasn't added anyone from the office on fb. What's that all about?"

>>442444

I foresee a future where a man is sent to HR because Karen saw him like a questionable Pepe frog meme on facebook which he clicked accidentally whilst listlessly scrolling through his fb, sitting on the bog.

>>442443

lad I stuck my hand in the fire 10 years ago and never since. Up until that point I had had freedom of expression online I would talk any old bollocks. the world you are describing where you put everything through a filter and are always looking over your shoulder didn't exist yet. The internet used to be the wild west, so don't act like it was obvious.

>>442445

I'll do you one better.

That he clicked on 10 years before, when pepe the frog had none of the current implications.

>>442445
I foresee a future where we all get sacked for posting on a website with a homophobic slur in the address. It will just be a coincidence of course that it will be when we do something that genuinely challenges the powers that be.

>>442447
>The internet used to be the wild west, so don't act like it was obvious.

It did, but not on fucking Facebook. At the end of the day, what you're saying boils down to "I was shocked when people talked about something I had posted on social media even though this is quite clearly one of the direct consequences of what could have happened."

Once you post something in the public domain like that you don't have control over what the repercussions may be, I'd have thought that was obvious. I haven't used Facebook in almost four years but before that point I made sure everything was private and I always ignored friend requests from anyone I worked with.

If I want to shitpost then I post here, otherwise people would think I'd gone mental if I uploaded a picture of Carol Vorderman almost every single day.

>>442451

>It did, but not on fucking Facebook. At the end of the day, what you're saying boils down to "I was shocked when people talked about something I had posted on social media even though this is quite clearly one of the direct consequences of what could have happened."

You aren't getting it lad. You know that now because you've had time to assimulate to that world, when facebook came out it was just another myspace.

You seem like one of those thickheads who assumes that everyone in history must have been an idiot because they didn't have access to the information you have and got things wrong.

>>442453
We'll have to agree to disagree.

I've been using the internet for well over 20 years and, even in 2011, I wouldn't have been surprised if something I posted on social media ends up being discussed IRL because that is one of the clear possibilities of what could happen when you put something in writing with your name attached to it. You just sound a little wet behind the ears.

>>442443
That's like saying that if you go around dressed "provocatively" you shouldn't be surprised that people try to rape you.

>>442451
Not him but while I can see he was naïve this has definitely been a common occurrence. Particularly for people in the last 2000s when they were just learning the ropes tubes or who were otherwise expecting the new web 2.0 to be anything but complete dogshit. MSN cyberbullying was probably a warning that nobody heeded.

It's mad to think about but some of the best advice and support I've gotten has been on anonymous imageboards or forums. Even genuine connections for that matter. The mask falling somehow made everyone more of a cunt in many ways, either because it let in the riff-raff or because it used to be that nobody could really hurt you on the internet.

>>442457
No it isn't. Posting on social media about your mental health problems, with work colleagues as the audience is exactly like... saying out loud at work that you have mental health problems.

Imagine saying out loud at work you have mental health problems and then being surprised to find out that people at work have discussed your mental health problems.

>>442455

You seem to have taken 10 years as a rather exact amount when it was a generalisation of time about a platform that only opened its doors publicly 14 years ago tell me when would you have been knowledgeable enough to know that something that culturally never existed before, and wasn’t a risk with any of its equivalents up to that point would happen?

>>442464
If you'd posted on MySpace about your mental health issues when this would have been read by work colleagues the outcome would likely have been the same. The medium itself doesn't matter as much as the particular audience you're posting to.

Let's agree to disagree because this will be tedious even by cunt-off standards.

>>442460

It is more like talking to your mate about an embarrassing story in the pub and then discovering the person on the table next to you worked with you overheard and has run off to tell everyone at work.

>>442466

I can agree that the problem is the audience changed, online shit used to be something you took to your grave because it was about things no one else would care about. The violation here to me was really about because I let one bad actor into a social circle it violated the ability for the rest of the circle to operate because all conversations must assume that that person will fuck everything up.

What I was saying as my original point was that we now live in a world where we are expected to let that bad actor in and that ruins it for everyone and we need to normalise posting slurs constantly so that person either gets desensitised or fucks off.

>>442437

The operative term was should, as in, a socialist/progressive type should be concerned with protecting the rights of workers and strengthening their protections.

The things you do online should be protected in the same way it's technically against the law to discriminate against someone for having tattoos or piercings etc. A person has a right to a private life and identity other than as your employee.

You obviously still wouldn't hire someone with a swastika tattooed on their forehead, but the precedent is there in law that an employer doesn't have the right to dictate how a person presents their body.

>>442468

Watch 'We Live in Public'. Josh Harris called all this shit in the 90s. His Dad was in the CIA.

>>442471
What precedent?

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/experts/legal/are-tattoos-still-taboo-at-work-fudia-smartt

>>442471
> in the same way it's technically against the law to discriminate against someone for having tattoos or piercings etc.

This is false.

>>442487

This.

My company is considered quite progressive in the industry in that we'll hire people with tattoos for public facing roles, as long as you cover them up when you're working. It's pretty funny as everyone uses those flesh coloured bandage sleeve things, so half the floor staff look like they've been involved in some sort of accident. I'd argue even a shit tattoo of a dolphin looks better, but if your customer base is 60% pensioners, you sort of have to suit their tastes.

>>442482
>>442487
>>442501

So when was the last time any of you sacked someone for coming in with a new tattoo?

>>442517

I haven't but if they didn't cover them up while on shift it wouldn't take long to get them out on uniform standards.

>>442517
It's like coming in with an open wound. I would expect them to be covered with detectable blue, once healed no one gives a shit.

>>442519

(I also wouldn't ever do this because I don't care and don't agree with the policy but someone would)